fatty:

The increase in the success of early draft picks since the inception of the draft nearly 25 years ago (and indeed in the past 15 years) indicates that the science of drafting has come a long way and improved the way teams draft today.

There is an element of art, however the ultra-simplistic method of simply drafting the player who was best on ground has proven itself to be a failure over a period of time. If you were only drafting ruckmen on performance then you'd never draft a ruckman younger than 27!

Do you know the name David Kellett? How about Ed Clarke? These were both very good junior footballers (Kellett was a dual AA), however neither of them were drafted because the science of drafting has indicated that these players would never be able to make the step up to be part of a successful AFL side. Leigh Brown is an example being used of a player who was a waste of an early pick, and he was drafted on the basis of being consistently best on ground at under 18 level. Matthew Panos this year?

Going to your question about a key forward developing a key defender skill set, I actually indicated that this is entirely possible. Modern history is littered with players who were drafted as forwards but became defenders. That's because there are flaws that a key defenders may be able to cover that they couldn't overcome as a forward. Presti and Martyn are examples, where their power and athleticism were good enough to react to an opponent and nullify a contest at full back, but they lacked the tricks, skills, hands and innate ability to lose their opponents like a forward needs to. But it is very rare that a defender can gain the skills to become a key forward.

I would argue that there are so many misses in the draft because there are aspects that are not analysed enough. Angwin, Beetham and Cupido are examples of players that shouldn't have been drafted so early because of their under-analysed issues. Leigh Brown shouldn't have been drafted early because he speed wasn't good enough for a bookend, and this should have been picked up if the recruiters analysed the needs for the position he played.

The reason why there are so many missed in the draft is because drafting 17 year olds is incredibly difficult. There are so many variables, such as what position they'd play at AFL and what skills they need for that, how much development they have left in them, what level of competition are they playing against (ie, 40 touches in unders 18s vs 12 in SANFL seniors). It is not the simplistic view that you hold, and that's the reason that drafting has improved.

The art of drafting is judging whether or not they have the skills, but unless you know the science of what skills you are looking for (or forecasting) then you are just pissing in the dark.

Sometimes (Angwin, Cupido case) it's hard to judge accurately how a player will turn out as a person.

Both those players had more talent on one finger than half the guys that get drafted so taking them would have been seen as a calculated risk by the club. Teams had the same concerns about Lance Franklin and he's turned out ok.

On another note: at least Gysberts and Blease can car pool to training

Grimes, Jack Grimes. Yum. Two Jack Grimes'

After a few frothies during the draft, when his name was read out I decided I didn't like him (Gysberts?) but then as a group we decided it'd take about 2 kicks in the big league for me to like him. As it turns out, it won't even take that.

Easy to please, aren't you?